Github List Repos

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations' read-only and non-destructive hints, the description discloses the account-type-dependent endpoint behavior and the 404/private-repo caveats for /orgs and /users. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs before selecting an owner value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences deliver the core function and the key endpoint caveat with no redundant wording. The trailing 'See #354' is an internal reference that an agent cannot act on, so the text is not completely waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list operation with no required parameters, an output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description covers the non-obvious endpoint behavior that could otherwise cause failures. Nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description enriches the owner parameter by explaining that account type determines the endpoint, but it does not add meaning for page or sort beyond the schema's type/enum/default conventions. Schema description coverage is only 50%, so some extra parameter explanation would be welcome, though the existing defaults mitigate the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause 'Lists repositories for a user, an organisation, or the caller' gives a specific verb, resource, and the accepted scopes. This makes it immediately distinct from sibling tools that list releases, tags, milestones, or files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly frames the usage context: listing repositories by user, organisation, or caller. It does not name an alternative, but there is no direct sibling for plain repository listing, so the lack of an explicit 'instead of' is not a material gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.